Comcast’s Internet for the poor too hard to sign up for, advocates say

FCC urged to boost Comcast's commitments in Time Warner Cable merger.

A California nonprofit says that a Comcast Internet service program for poor people is too difficult to sign up for, resulting in just 11 percent of eligible households in the state getting service.

Comcast had to create the $10-per-month Internet Essentials program in order to secure approval of its acquisition of NBCUniversal in 2011. About 300,000 households containing 1.2 million people nationwide have gotten cheap Internet service as a result, but the California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF) complains that the signup process is riddled with problems, a charge Comcast denies.

Further Reading

CETF itself was created by the California Public Utilities Commission when approving the mergers of SBC-AT&T and Verizon-MCI, and its purpose was to accelerate broadband deployment for unserved or underserved populations. The group says additional requirements should be imposed on Comcast as part of its pending acquisition of Time Warner Cable.

In comments filed with the FCC, CETF said Comcast has signed up 35,205 households out of more than 313,000 eligible ones in California. Nationwide, 300,000 families out of 2.6 million eligible have signed up, Comcast said in March. The service offers 5Mbps download and 1Mbps upload speeds and a computer for $150, of which 23,000 have been sold.

"Comcast makes the sign-up process long and cumbersome," CETF claimed. "The application process often takes 2-3 months, far too long for customers who are skeptical about the product in the first place, and have other pressing demands on their budgets. The waiting period between the initial call to Comcast and the CIE [Comcast Internet Essentials] application arriving in the mail can stretch 8-12 weeks, if it comes at all. After submitting the application, another 2-4 weeks elapse before the equipment arrives. Many low-income residents do not have Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and are required to travel long distances to verify their identities because Comcast has closed many of its regional offices. Recently, some potential subscribers with SSNs were rejected over the phone and told they had to visit a Comcast office. Comcast has a pilot effort in Florida that should be expanded to allow customers to fax or e-mail photocopied IDs as proof of identification."

This is false, Comcast spokesperson Charlie Douglas told Ars today. "Once we receive a fully executed application we can provision service in about three to five days," he said. CETF has "brought us customers in the past, and we diligently look through every single one and try to resolve it to the best of our ability and will continue to do that if there are additional customers they haven't brought to our attention," Douglas said.

CETF also wrote that Comcast has violated program rules by conducting credit checks. "Comcast conducts credit checks for some customers, contrary to CIE rules," the CETF filing said. "Dozens of clients are receiving letters from Comcast saying that they have failed a credit check. Comcast specifically states and advertises no credit check is needed for CIE. This has repercussions beyond obtaining broadband service. The act of performing a credit check can negatively impact the consumer’s credit worthiness. Initially, some CIE service representatives told customers they could pay $150 deposit to avoid a credit check, also contrary to program rules."

Douglas acknowledged that problem, chalking it up to a "technical error" in which a credit check was incorrectly triggered by an automated process. "That was an error we made, and we have tried to make right with any customer who was impacted," Douglas said. "We have reached out and apologized to customers and tried to resolve the problem in each and every instance." In cases when a credit check was performed by mistake, "we worked with the credit reporting agencies to have it removed from the applicant's record, and we worked with the partner organization to communicate that back to the applicant."

CETF also claimed that the CIE online application "has never worked properly… The site is often unable to complete address eligibility searches and simply redirects the customer to the 1-855 number again. This situation has been a major barrier at technology fairs, where families are told they cannot sign up online and must make a separate trip to a Comcast office. Comcast continues to ignore consumer feedback about the poor website operations."

Douglas said the online application does work. "We process thousands of applications online," he said. Applicants may be prompted to call if Comcast records indicate they have an unpaid bill or are at an address not in the company's service territory, he said.

Internet Essentials to play role in Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger

Comcast's annual report on its NBC commitments said that it "has distributed 27 million brochures in 14 different languages to school districts and community partners, fielded more than 1.5 million phone calls at the Internet Essentials call center, had 1.2 million visits to the websites, and broadcast more than two million PSAs about the program. The company has offered Internet Essentials in more than 30,000 schools in 4,000 school districts and provided tens of thousands of individuals with digital literacy training."

Comcast originally promised to keep the program running through June 2014, but "in March we announced voluntarily that we are going to extend the program indefinitely," Douglas said.

"This is an extremely hard group to market to," Comcast VP of Government Communications Sena Fitzmaurice told Ars today. "After 15+ years of marketing broadband everywhere we can, spending hundreds of millions of dollars doing so, our overall broadband penetration is only 39 percent in our markets (that was from our earnings call just yesterday). That we’ve gotten as many people as we have signed up via this program in this short a time is great."

Comcast has touted Internet Essentials while trying to win approval of its Time Warner Cable acquisition, pledging to bring the program to "millions of additional families in cities like New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Kansas City, and Charlotte," which are in TWC service areas.

The CETF urged the FCC to increase Comcast's commitments if the TWC merger is approved, asking for conditions including the following:

Include All Low-Income Households: Extend Comcast Internet Essentials to all low-income households, not just those with school children. For example, low-income seniors, people with disabilities, and recently returned veterans are not covered today.

Set Performance Goals: Set a national goal for Comcast to increase Internet Essentials subscribership for eligible households (now at about 11% in California and the nation) to reach 45% in 2 years and to continue the program until 80% adoption is achieved in low-income neighborhoods in each major Comcast market.

Capitalize an Independent Fund and Coordinate with States: Collaborate with states such as California that are major Comcast-TWC markets and have a strategic plan to close the Digital Divide and require Comcast to dedicate a sufficient amount to an independently managed fund to engage experienced community-based organizations to assist in achieving subscriber goals.

There should also be an oversight committee to monitor Comcast's progress, the group said.

I don't understand why these sorts of programs are accepted as atonement for mergers that would otherwise be deemed unacceptable.

It's not exactly a surprise that the slum-internet-for-filthy-poor-people tier will be made precisely as hostile as they can get away with, and will thus almost certainly fall notably short of whatever the target number served is supposed to be.

Also, if the company agrees to provide 'uneconomic' services to X people as a condition of a merger that suggests one or both of two things: either the price that is allegedly charitable is actually just a reduction in margins (which certainly suggests that less competition isn't a good idea) or that the expected revenue from squeezing customers harder after the merger will more than make up for the cost of subsidizing the program. Neither possibility suggests that letting the merger go through is anything but a disaster in the making.

If ensuring that poor people have internet access is the objective, just subsidize them directly. The worst thing you could do is allow market consolidation to drive prices up across the board in exchange for a (usually time-limited and always handicapped by malicious implementation) promise to cut those prices for some customers.

Here at OmniGlobalCorp we are proud to announce our "Giving Back To The Peoples" program where we provide free service to the riff- to the prole- to the lower asseted members of our society, and it has nothing to do with the court ordered settlement in the "OmniGlobalCorp Versus Lot And Lots Of Orphans And *So* Many Kittens" case.

To receive the free services, you must call between 1:10am and 1:12am in your local time zone on a Monday or Thursday, unless the moon is past full, then it's Tuesday and Sunday. You will be asked to speak your details to our prototype voice recognition system. Be prepared to take between 5 minutes and six hours. Once that's complete, you will receive a 104 character password, a 57 digit access code and the URL to log into to enter this data and truly begin the process of signing up. Due to fiscal constraints and to avoid eating into executive bonuses, our web site is currently optimized for the Camino browser running under BeOS. If you can't find Camino for BeOS, poke around our site. There's a BeOS dev kit there somewhere you can use to port it over in no time at all. Enjoy your free services!

Saw an ad for this program the other day at a Portland Movies in the Park event. The tone of the ad was entirely self-congratulatory, and failed to mention that you could actually register for this service. Also missing: That despite the self-administered back pats, Comcast had been required to create this program by the government.

Set a national goal for Comcast to increase Internet Essentials subscribership for eligible households (now at about 11% in California and the nation) to reach 45% in 2 years and to continue the program until 80% adoption is achieved in low-income neighborhoods in each major Comcast market.

Unless they're only looking at potential customers who either don't have home internet or have another very low speed connection, these goals alarm me. In particular the latter one would require that less than 20% of poor people have anything more than a so low it's barely usable internet connection. I find it improbable that they'd be able to achieve that goal without forcibly downgrading customers connections. My inner cynic says that if Comcast were to somehow achieve the goals that the same people currently pushing for these programs would instead be denouncing Comcast for forcing poor customers into an internet slow lane.

Set a national goal for Comcast to increase Internet Essentials subscribership for eligible households (now at about 11% in California and the nation) to reach 45% in 2 years and to continue the program until 80% adoption is achieved in low-income neighborhoods in each major Comcast market.

Unless they're only looking at potential customers who either don't have home internet or have another very low speed connection, these goals alarm me. In particular the latter one would require that less than 20% of poor people have anything more than a so low it's barely usable internet connection. I find it improbable that they'd be able to achieve that goal without forcibly downgrading customers connections. My inner cynic says that if Comcast were to somehow achieve the goals that the same people currently pushing for these programs would instead be denouncing Comcast for forcing poor customers into an internet slow lane.

You're misreading it: They want 80% of people eligible for this program to sign up, not 80% of Americans/Comcaptives to be at this speed tier. Well, publically, anyway. I'm sure Comcast would love to degrade the internet to such speeds for most people if they could pull it off.

Set a national goal for Comcast to increase Internet Essentials subscribership for eligible households (now at about 11% in California and the nation) to reach 45% in 2 years and to continue the program until 80% adoption is achieved in low-income neighborhoods in each major Comcast market.

Unless they're only looking at potential customers who either don't have home internet or have another very low speed connection, these goals alarm me. In particular the latter one would require that less than 20% of poor people have anything more than a so low it's barely usable internet connection. I find it improbable that they'd be able to achieve that goal without forcibly downgrading customers connections. My inner cynic says that if Comcast were to somehow achieve the goals that the same people currently pushing for these programs would instead be denouncing Comcast for forcing poor customers into an internet slow lane.

You're misreading it: They want 80% of people eligible for this program to sign up, not 80% of Americans/Comcaptives to be at this speed tier. Well, publically, anyway. I'm sure Comcast would love to degrade the internet to such speeds for most people if they could pull it off.

No, you're misreading my comment. The program is limited to (some) poor people; my comment was that the proposed objective of 80% of poor people using it would almost certainly require forcing some of them onto a lower tier of service than they're currently using.

Set a national goal for Comcast to increase Internet Essentials subscribership for eligible households (now at about 11% in California and the nation) to reach 45% in 2 years and to continue the program until 80% adoption is achieved in low-income neighborhoods in each major Comcast market.

Unless they're only looking at potential customers who either don't have home internet or have another very low speed connection, these goals alarm me. In particular the latter one would require that less than 20% of poor people have anything more than a so low it's barely usable internet connection. I find it improbable that they'd be able to achieve that goal without forcibly downgrading customers connections. My inner cynic says that if Comcast were to somehow achieve the goals that the same people currently pushing for these programs would instead be denouncing Comcast for forcing poor customers into an internet slow lane.

You're misreading it: They want 80% of people eligible for this program to sign up, not 80% of Americans/Comcaptives to be at this speed tier. Well, publically, anyway. I'm sure Comcast would love to degrade the internet to such speeds for most people if they could pull it off.

No, you're misreading my comment. The program is limited to (some) poor people; my comment was that the proposed objective of 80% of poor people using it would almost certainly require forcing some of them onto a lower tier of service than they're currently using.

One of the eligibility requirements is that they not presently be a Comcast subscriber. Of course, that doesn't mean they don't subscribe to someone else's faster service...

There is something weird about normal ISP/cell provider websites having smiling people when compared to the sad kid in this one .

That is because they don't want people to sign up for this service. they have every incentive to make it as difficult and tedious as possible, including using psychology to deter customers. People see the sad kid and already their mood is going downhill.

I don't understand why these sorts of programs are accepted as atonement for mergers that would otherwise be deemed unacceptable.

It's not exactly a surprise that the slum-internet-for-filthy-poor-people tier will be made precisely as hostile as they can get away with, and will thus almost certainly fall notably short of whatever the target number served is supposed to be.

Also, if the company agrees to provide 'uneconomic' services to X people as a condition of a merger that suggests one or both of two things: either the price that is allegedly charitable is actually just a reduction in margins (which certainly suggests that less competition isn't a good idea) or that the expected revenue from squeezing customers harder after the merger will more than make up for the cost of subsidizing the program. Neither possibility suggests that letting the merger go through is anything but a disaster in the making.

If ensuring that poor people have internet access is the objective, just subsidize them directly. The worst thing you could do is allow market consolidation to drive prices up across the board in exchange for a (usually time-limited and always handicapped by malicious implementation) promise to cut those prices for some customers.

Set a national goal for Comcast to increase Internet Essentials subscribership for eligible households (now at about 11% in California and the nation) to reach 45% in 2 years and to continue the program until 80% adoption is achieved in low-income neighborhoods in each major Comcast market.

Unless they're only looking at potential customers who either don't have home internet or have another very low speed connection, these goals alarm me. In particular the latter one would require that less than 20% of poor people have anything more than a so low it's barely usable internet connection. I find it improbable that they'd be able to achieve that goal without forcibly downgrading customers connections. My inner cynic says that if Comcast were to somehow achieve the goals that the same people currently pushing for these programs would instead be denouncing Comcast for forcing poor customers into an internet slow lane.

That's easily addressed; just tweak the goal so the percentages also includes eligible households that have faster service.

Set a national goal for Comcast to increase Internet Essentials subscribership for eligible households (now at about 11% in California and the nation) to reach 45% in 2 years and to continue the program until 80% adoption is achieved in low-income neighborhoods in each major Comcast market.

Unless they're only looking at potential customers who either don't have home internet or have another very low speed connection, these goals alarm me. In particular the latter one would require that less than 20% of poor people have anything more than a so low it's barely usable internet connection. I find it improbable that they'd be able to achieve that goal without forcibly downgrading customers connections. My inner cynic says that if Comcast were to somehow achieve the goals that the same people currently pushing for these programs would instead be denouncing Comcast for forcing poor customers into an internet slow lane.

You're misreading it: They want 80% of people eligible for this program to sign up, not 80% of Americans/Comcaptives to be at this speed tier. Well, publically, anyway. I'm sure Comcast would love to degrade the internet to such speeds for most people if they could pull it off.

No, you're misreading my comment. The program is limited to (some) poor people; my comment was that the proposed objective of 80% of poor people using it would almost certainly require forcing some of them onto a lower tier of service than they're currently using.

One of the eligibility requirements is that they not presently be a Comcast subscriber. Of course, that doesn't mean they don't subscribe to someone else's faster service...

In that case, unless "punch the community activist who wants me to only slow crappy internet in face" and is scored equivalently to "switch to slow crappy internet because saving a few bucks is more important to me than a fast connection".

Less scathingly put, the criteria should be switched or aware of the program but not interested.

Hi, are you poor as shit and looking to register for a dirt basic internet plan we begrudgi -- er, proudly offer? Sorry, the line's closed! Hi, are you everyone else and trying to cancel your throttled, absurdly overpriced service? Not if we can make it as difficult as possible! God, fuck this pigshit company.

I have absolutely no love for Comcast, and I totally understand the uproar about corporate power houses making "cheap" offerings insanely hard or even impossible to find and sign up for... but in this particular scenario, I have to wonder: just how many people who qualify would sign up, even if the process was dead simple? I mean, I'm assuming that you basically need to be dirt poor (or near to it) in order to qualify, right? So if you're dirt poor, you're probably going to be more interested in using that ten bucks to buy milk for the kids*. Likewise, if you've grown accustomed to scrimping and saving in order to get by, then you almost certainly already make liberal use of your local library... which usually has computers with internet access. Having internet in your home is effectively a luxury, when it can also be obtained elsewhere, cheaper (or free).

I guess what I'm getting at is, the entire situation seems rather counter-intuitive to me. How much does CETF really think things will change, if they succeed in getting Comcast to fix their process?

* Or, if you're less optimistic: booze for the depressed dad to drown his sorrows over not being able to afford milk for the kids...

This has repercussions beyond obtaining broadband service. The act of performing a credit check can negatively impact the consumer’s credit worthiness. Initially, some CIE service representatives told customers they could pay $150 deposit to avoid a credit check, also contrary to program rules."

Their credit is already bad. The negative impact on their credit score wouldn't really have that much of an effect.

Anyone find it funny there is a website for people without internet for a low-cost program to provide internet?

Anyone without access to the internet who might need the program can't access it.

Can someone explain to me why "Many low-income residents do not have Social Security Numbers (SSNs)"? Are they immigrants?

I don't think there is any requirement that you have a social security number. For the employed, it may be hard to imagine not having one, but if you've never had a decent job you might never have needed to get one. It's primary function is to track your social security contributions from your salary, and if you have no salary....

I have absolutely no love for Comcast, and I totally understand the uproar about corporate power houses making "cheap" offerings insanely hard or even impossible to find and sign up for... but in this particular scenario, I have to wonder: just how many people who qualify would sign up, even if the process was dead simple? I mean, I'm assuming that you basically need to be dirt poor (or near to it) in order to qualify, right? So if you're dirt poor, you're probably going to be more interested in using that ten bucks to buy milk for the kids*. Likewise, if you've grown accustomed to scrimping and saving in order to get by, then you almost certainly already make liberal use of your local library... which usually has computers with internet access. Having internet in your home is effectively a luxury, when it can also be obtained elsewhere, cheaper (or free).

I guess what I'm getting at is, the entire situation seems rather counter-intuitive to me. How much does CETF really think things will change, if they succeed in getting Comcast to fix their process?

* Or, if you're less optimistic: booze for the depressed dad to drown his sorrows over not being able to afford milk for the kids...

One of the requirements is that you have a child eligible for the Lunch program. Depending on your relationship to the child, you might not be 'poor' yourself.

Can someone explain to me why "Many low-income residents do not have Social Security Numbers (SSNs)"? Are they immigrants?

I don't think there is any requirement that you have a social security number. For the employed, it may be hard to imagine not having one, but if you've never had a decent job you might never have needed to get one. It's primary function is to track your social security contributions from your salary, and if you have no salary....

I don't understand this either because for a lot of gov't assistance programs you do need a SSN.

Saw an ad for this program the other day at a Portland Movies in the Park event. The tone of the ad was entirely self-congratulatory, and failed to mention that you could actually register for this service. Also missing: That despite the self-administered back pats, Comcast had been required to create this program by the government.

Well suppose Comcast added that disclaimer. What benefit would the applicant get from that? Would it do them any good at all to know that? Why would they care about the origin of the service? Isn't signing up for the service the main thing?

That was all it was ever intended for. It was never intended for all "poor" people. It was intended for low income families, so their school-age children would not fall even further behind their more affluent classmates who can access the Internet at home. That's why all the advertising and marketing materials were directed at so many schools.